Playstation 4 Pro

[Gon Freecss]

Just how powerful is the PlayStation 4 Pro? What is the equivalent of its CPU and GPU in computer components?

 

[captaincharisma]

from articles around the web it is equivalent to a GTX 970

 

[Gon Freecss]

from articles around the web it is equivalent to a GTX 970

It's based on Polaris with an FP16 feature from Vega. I guess it around RX 470 levels based on its FP32. Its FP16, however, is a lot higher. I'm not sure if they'll make use of it in games though.

The processor is a Jaguar 2.1GHz 8 core chip. I guess it's basically an underclocked Bulldozer/Piledriver processor?

 

[feelinfroggy777]

Since the parts were developed strictly for the PS4 pro, it is difficult to get direct comparisons.

The CPU of the PS4 Pro was not much of an upgrade from the original. It still used the Jaguar cores, but the clock speed went from 1.6ghz to 2.1ghz. I have seen some compare it to the AMD Athlon 5350 due to the similar clock speeds. But the 5350 is a quad core chip and the PS4 Pro has an 8 core chip. Another comparison would be the FX 8320, but it has much higher clock speeds than the Jaguar.

For the GPU I think it is a little more clear. I would say the RX 480 8gb. The 8gb model is needed to manage 4k resolution.

 

[boosted1g]

This not quite strait forward to answer.

You can compare raw performance of the chip to an equivalent but gaming performance does not equal.

PS4 Pro games will be coded to be optimized for that platform thus it will play noticably better on the PS4 then it will on the ported PC game with "similar" hardware specs.

 

[Phillip Corcoran]

And deciding whether or not to get a games console or a PC is not straightforward either, because you can do an awful lot more on a PC besides playing games, whereas a console is rather less versatile on that score.

 

[Gon Freecss]

Since the parts were developed strictly for the PS4 pro, it is difficult to get direct comparisons.

The CPU of the PS4 Pro was not much of an upgrade from the original. It still used the Jaguar cores, but the clock speed went from 1.6ghz to 2.1ghz. I have seen some compare it to the AMD Athlon 5350 due to the similar clock speeds. But the 5350 is a quad core chip and the PS4 Pro has an 8 core chip. Another comparison would be the FX 8320, but it has much higher clock speeds than the Jaguar.

For the GPU I think it is a little more clear. I would say the RX 480 8gb. The 8gb model is needed to manage 4k resolution.

Is the Jaguar microarchitecture the same as the Piledriver architecture, or is it weaker? Cause if it's the same as the Piledriver architecture, then the PS4 Pro's CPU is basically a downclocked FX-8300. The Jaguar architecture might be a stripped down Piledriver architecture, so that'd mean it's basically a stripped down, downclocked FX-8300.

Its raw computing power is below that of both the RX 480 and the 470. However, its half precision floating point performance is higher than both, but I don't think it does much to games.

Basically, do you think an RX 470/570 combined with say an Athlon X4 845 (Excavator) or an X4 860K (Steamroller) with its higher clock-speeds and IPC would be better than the PS4 Pro in well optimized games?

 

[feelinfroggy777]

Your trying to compare apples to oranges. When comparing raw horsepower of the cpu, then it would be down clocked 8300 or worse (see the AMD Athlon 5350). And the PS4 pro gpu has 8gb, but performance is on par with at 470/570 and AMD does not make an 8gb 470/570. Meaning there are no consumer gpu's available for purchase that meet the PS4 requirements.

Ray horsepower is one thing, but reality is very different. You want to use an Athlon X4 845 and a 470/570 to have PS4 performance and your answer is no, for several reasons. First, PS4 is not run on windows, its run on a very light OS that is designed strictly for gaming performance. While the downfall is that you can do little more than game or watch videos, performance is increased drastically compared to similar hardware on a windows machine. Second, Sony is doing some crafty checkerboard rendering that is not "true 4k"as far as the PC gaming community is concerned and then there are the differences in what is considered playable FPS with pc vs console. Lastly, games are built for consoles, this is where developers make their money. Even a "well optimized game" on PC cant compete with the level of optimization that a console provides. I am not advocating for consoles over PCs by any stretch of the imagination. But if my only choice was to game on a low end PC or a PS4 Pro, I would game on the pro.

If used strictly for gaming, I would have a better gaming experience with a PS4 than a PC with a Athlon X4 and a 470 as a PS4 Pro price is very reasonable for entry level gaming. If I were on a limited budge and wanted to build a gaming rig, I would still not build anything on the AM3 platform it is dead as disco and will probably bottleneck any modern GPU. I would save my money for a Ryzen 5 (or save more for intel) or I would wait and see what the Ryzen 3's and/or the APUs look like. Ryzen cores with a Vega GPU on APU has the potential to make a very nice and inexpensive machine.